Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mr_discussions

Read-only

List threaded discussion items for a merge request by project ID and IID, with pagination and optional JMESPath filtering. Read-only; errors on invalid IDs, missing resources, or permission failures.

Instructions

List discussion items for a merge request. Use this to list complete discussion threads for a merge request; use get_merge_request_notes when only flat notes are needed. It is read-only and returns threaded discussion items, while invalid merge request identifiers, missing resources, and permission failures are reported as errors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
merge_request_iidYesThe IID of a merge request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid"
+]
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this while adding valuable context: it returns threaded discussion items and reports invalid IDs, missing resources, and permission failures as errors. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and behavioral context. There is minor redundancy between 'List discussion items' and 'list complete discussion threads,' but overall each sentence contributes useful information without excessive length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns, when to use an alternative, and how errors surface. It does not describe response shape, but that is not required here given the tool's simplicity and the absence of side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond its general references to merge requests, but it also does not need to since the schema fully documents each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'List discussion items for a merge request' and specifies that it returns 'complete discussion threads.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `get_merge_request_notes` by contrasting flat notes with threaded discussions, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: use this tool for complete discussion threads and use `get_merge_request_notes` when only flat notes are needed. This gives an agent a clear decision rule between two closely related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools